Commonwealth v. Fisher
622 Pa. 366
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Three teenage defendants (Fisher, Best, Stanton) joined others in a brutal subway beating that caused the victim’s death by fatal asthma attack; defendants were tried jointly and admitted participation.
- Jury convicted Fisher and Best of third‑degree murder and conspiracy to commit third‑degree murder; Stanton was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and conspiracy to commit third‑degree murder.
- The Superior Court affirmed the substantive homicide convictions but vacated the conspiracy convictions, concluding conspiracy to commit third‑degree murder is a legal nullity (relying on Clinger and a Weimer parenthetical).
- Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of conspiracy convictions (and alternatively asking for modification to a cognizable conspiracy offense).
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory text, mens rea doctrines, and prior precedent and considered whether conspiracy (a specific‑intent offense) can target third‑degree murder (an offense defined by malice rather than a specific intent to kill).
- The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and held conspiracy to commit third‑degree murder is a cognizable offense; remanded to reinstate sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Appellees' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is conspiracy to commit third‑degree murder cognizable under Pennsylvania law? | §903 criminalizes agreements to engage in conduct that constitutes the crime; third‑degree murder requires malice (intentional/knowing/reckless conduct under §302(c)), so one can intend the underlying conduct and thus conspire to third‑degree murder. | Conspiracy is a specific‑intent crime; third‑degree murder is an unintended result (no specific intent to kill), so it is logically impossible to intend an unintentional killing. | Conspiracy to commit third‑degree murder is cognizable: conspiracy targets the intentional conduct (the malicious act), not an "intention to bring about an unintentional result." |
| If not cognizable, should an appellate court modify the conviction to conspiracy to aggravated assault? | If invalid, remand should be avoided by modifying the conviction to a cognizable lesser‑included conspiracy (consistent with appellate modification powers). | Modification would require guessing jury findings because trial charge fused aggravated assault and murder, so vacatur was proper. | Court did not reach this alternative because it held the offense cognizable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Weimer, 977 A.2d 1103 (Pa. 2009) (addressed conspiracy to homicide generally; noted Clinger parenthetically)
- Commonwealth v. Roebuck, 32 A.3d 613 (Pa. 2011) (accomplice liability to third‑degree murder is possible because liability focuses on conduct, not the unintended result)
- Commonwealth v. Clinger, 833 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 2003) (held conspiracy to commit third‑degree murder logically impossible)
- Commonwealth v. Eiland, 801 A.2d 651 (Pa. 2002) (conspirator liable for natural and probable consequences of conspiracy, including homicide)
- Commonwealth v. Mobley, 359 A.2d 367 (Pa. 1976) (upholding conspiracy conviction where shared intent to attack created nexus for conspiratorial liability to homicide)